Live data from Hacker News

Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

github.com

51–60 of 381 posts

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#51

Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to Free/Open License! Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good. But for anyone with more advance needs (or who doesn't trust a password manager built into a web browser, I always recommend Bitwarden because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people.

> because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people I've been debating for ages if this is a hurdle that can be overcome by packaging or even hand-holding support. When I show "normal people" my pass+sync setup they beg me to implement it for them. Once it's running it's near-zero maintenance.

Password management is like exercise. Even when people say they understand the value and want to do it, they don't. Even if you implement it for them, if it's not something that slots perfectly into their existing routine, they're not going to do it. Thankfully passkeys are here.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you share how do you set this up?

I store the password vault in dropbox. Done.

100% serious question: how is using dropbox (one cloud) to sync passwords any better or more secure than using a password manager that syncs your vault for you (another cloud)? I see so many "I don't trust so I use dropbox" comments around these parts and I just don't understand what real or perceived threat is being mitigated.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#55
post #48

BitWarden has lost the trust. Besides recently there was a blocker bug on iOS and on Reddit I found out it happened earlier as well. They didn't even want to debug it and when I suggested this and asked whether they have any issue logged on Github where I could provide logs they went radio silent. Follow ups went completely unanswered. And yeah before that they had given a solution (because reinstall/re-login nothing…

[flagged]

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#56

Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to Free/Open License! Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good. But for anyone with more advance needs (or who doesn't trust a password manager built into a web browser, I always recommend Bitwarden because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people.

[deleted]

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#58
post #48

BitWarden has lost the trust. Besides recently there was a blocker bug on iOS and on Reddit I found out it happened earlier as well. They didn't even want to debug it and when I suggested this and asked whether they have any issue logged on Github where I could provide logs they went radio silent. Follow ups went completely unanswered. And yeah before that they had given a solution (because reinstall/re-login nothing…

> BitWarden has lost the trust. Besides...

I'm confused what you're responding to. You're making it sound like this was a bad decision and your anecdote was another thing for the pile, but this is a good decision.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#59
post #10

Luckily if they die another will rise up. At this point I’m thinking I’ll just use the Apple Keychain if Bitwarden gets up to no good again.

It probably doesn't matter for you if you'll never be leaving Apple's ecosystem, but for anyone else, I think that's something to keep in mind before moving to a non-portable solution like Apple keychain.

> non-portable solution like Apple keychain

Yes, non-portable across different OEMs. But Apple Passwords app lets you export your passwords in a nice little simple csv file. It was a suspicion-filled (because it's Apple) pleasant surprise to find that out.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#60
post #18

Doesn’t GPL mean that it can’t be forked and published into the Apple iOS app store? Presumably they are able to do it because they own the rights and can grant a non-GPL license to Apple for distribution. This seems to me to still be a “nobody can fork this [and still have a viable iOS app] but us”.

Whenever I've heard about someone having problems publishing a fork on the App Store, it was a trademark rather than a copyright issue. If you fork it, you must completely re-brand it to publish it on the App Store.
Post reply on HN